@unknown
March 5, 2026
Responding to the abuse crisis objection charitably but honestly
This is the hardest apologetics question because it is not primarily philosophical — it is moral and personal. "How can you remain in an institution that covered up the abuse of children?" deserves an honest answer, not a deflection. My answer has three parts: (1) the crimes and cover-ups were real and inexcusable; (2) institutional failure does not refute the truth claims; (3) leaving does not undo the harm or protect future children — staying and demanding reform does. Is this the right frame? What would you add or change?
2 comments
2 Comments
Want to reply?
Your three-part frame is right, but I would add a fourth: naming specific reforms that have been implemented — mandatory reporting protocols, independent lay review boards, the Dallas Charter — not to minimize what happened but to show that the institutional response, however slow and inadequate, has changed. The Church in 2026 is not the Church of 1985 in this regard.
I have found that sitting with the anger before offering any response is what makes the conversation possible. People raising this objection are often genuinely wounded — by the crimes, by the betrayal, by the cover-up. Jumping to a defence before honouring the weight of that is perceived as dismissal, even when the defence is logically sound.
